Your ideal solution?

[Tallpine]

There are some things that require federal law enforcement.  FBI makes sense, in that it investigates and prosecutes interstate crimes.

We didn't even have an FBI until what ... the 1920s     

[MechAg94]

Yeah, but wasn't there a reason we created it?

[longeyes]

Yeah, paved roads.

[Jamisjockey]

So if Nebraska wants to turn itself in to a radioactive/toxic/biomedical dump, the surrounding states have no say?

Sure they do.  If they can prove damages caused by Nebraska to their states, they can sue in federal courts. 

What recourse does the US have if Canada decides to start dumping waste into the great lakes?

[Tallpine]

Yeah, but wasn't there a reason we created it?

Prohibition 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Prohibition 

crooks figured out how to cross jurisdictional lines to escape the law

[Scout26]

RE: Campaign contributions.

There is a certain logic here.  Think about the recent elections.  Millions of dollars wer spent on jobs that pay <$200,000 per year.   Why, because it simply follows Sutton's Law "Because that's where the money is."

Money creates power.  The only reason people/organizations donate to candidates/parties is to get them to do their bidding.  Well what if the is no bidding to do ??  There's no reason to donate money to campaigns.

Get the money out of .gov and the power is sucked away.  Therefore, the there will be less emoney spent on campaigns.  


 

[kgbsquirrel]

More RE: Campaign contributions.

Are bribery laws a violation of the 1A, at what point do campaign contributions become outright bribery?

"Here you go congresscritter, enough money to ensure that you can out buy your fellow candidates in advertising, staff and all around campaigning and guarantee yourself that position of power. If any legislation comes up that will affect my corporation two states over that your constituents really don't want you'll be sure to give it 'sound and impartial consideration' *wink-wink-nudge-nudge*"

I'm still failing to see for what purpose a New York company needs to be donating millions to a Nevada congressman when said congressman is supposed to be representing the people from his Nevada district. Hence my suggestion that only people who are actually in the candidates district being able to donate (which seems to be a part of my suggestion lost when everyone got stuck on a dollar amount.)

[Scout26]

Because the legislation affects everyone, not just your district (that whole commerce clause thing). 

At what point does a campaign contribution become a bribe: $.01.

People give money to candidates for one of two reasons:  I like the way you vote on my issues, so here's some cash to keep voting that way; or 2) I don't like the way you vote on my issues, but if I give you money that may help change your mind.

I didn't miss your part about only the people in the district being able to contribute.  There are a couple of problems.
1) I pointed out that Acme Corp (or Union) could offer to give $105 or more to everyone in the district that gives $100 their candidate.  (sorry, I'm from Chicago, they could also have dead people contributing.) 
2) What about different voter populations.  For example Montana has one Rep.  There are 974,000 people in Montana.  But there are 13,000,000 in Illinois with 19 Congressional districts.   Conceivably the people running for Rep in Montana could have up to $97,400,00 to split to spend on their campaigns, while those running in Illinois would only have $68,421,053 to divide to spend on their campaign.  And you better believe that they'd be running to the nearest Federal Courthouse to get that "evened out". 

Any restriction on contributions is a limit on the 1A.   Get the money out of .gov and the there won't be any money in politics.  You don't spend money on something that doesn't affect you.   Why would Acme corp (or Union) donate to any politician when there's nothing they can do either for or against them.

[Scout26]

What if I want to buy Internet, Print, Radio or TV ads for or against a candidate.  Would that be allowed under you $100 per person max limit ?

[kgbsquirrel]

At what point does a campaign contribution become a bribe: $.01.

So. Do anti-bribe laws violate your 1A right?

People give money to candidates for one of two reasons:  I like the way you vote on my issues, so here's some cash to keep voting that way my vote to help you get elected.

*shrug* I don't think I'm going to change my mind on this particular issue, I can't see any way to spin giving cash to a political candidate as anything other than influence buying, read, bribe.

What if I want to buy Internet, Print, Radio or TV ads for or against a candidate.  Would that be allowed under you $100 per person max limit ?

Federal employees are prohibited from accepted gifts whose value exceeds $20 fair market value. So, $20 worth fliers. It's been a while since I've done anything inside a radio or TV station, but somehow I think it would be a tight squeeze to get any sort of air-time plus the production costs of the advertisement under $20.

[Scout26]

Campaign contributions are legalized bribery.  No matter what restriction you put in place, there will be unintended consquences and a way found around those restrictions (if not outright dishonesty).  The only way is make the contributions open and above board, so that everyone can see who is giving money to whom. 

But the real key is to get the money out of Washington (and Springfield and Helena and every other state capitol).  If there's no influence, there's no influence to buy.


There's no way to do it without trampling the 1A, so the only way to do is make sure that it's all open to public scrutiny. 

[kgbsquirrel]

Campaign contributions are legalized bribery.  No matter what restriction you put in place, there will be unintended consquences and a way found around those restrictions (if not outright dishonesty).  The only way is make the contributions open and above board, so that everyone can see who is giving money to whom. 

But the real key is to get the money out of Washington (and Springfield and Helena and every other state capitol).  If there's no influence, there's no influence to buy.


There's no way to do it without trampling the 1A, so the only way to do is make sure that it's all open to public scrutiny. 

I suppose that's less harsh than the Roman way of dealing with bribery of public officials. 


Well then. How do you suggest removing the money from those places? Perhaps some constitutional locks on what federal money may be spent on, tied to a percentage of GDP or actual tax receipts (not borrowed money). DOD, DOE, and the rest of the alphabet agencies all get X cut of the pie each year, no more, no less.

[Scout26]

Loop back to my first post: get rid of any agency created after ohhh, 1790.   Yep, there will have to be some tightening at DOD, things like instead of DOD fronting the money, the companies front the money for new programs/projects.  If it's great idea and the DOD likes then you'll be rewarded, if it's a turd, well, then you get to eat it, just like any other private sector R&D.

Unlike BW, I'm talking radical reductions and a game changing way Uncle Sugar does business.

[Tallpine]

crooks figured out how to cross jurisdictional lines to escape the law

...that never should have been 


Just about every "problem" is the government's "solution" to some previous "problem".

[MicroBalrog]

crooks figured out how to cross jurisdictional lines to escape the law

Obviously criminals weren't aware of the existance of state borders up until the 1920s.

[Boomhauer]

Yeah...no.  Sure you're not a Maoist?

Pretty damn sure I'm not a Maoist, but I actually worked for the fed .gov and the amount of oxygen wasters employed with taxpayer dollars is mindboggling. I know you're seeking a job with the fed .gov, you'll understand if you are ever employed by them. The federal government is a special kind of evil.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Obviously criminals weren't aware of the existance of state borders up until the 1920s.

they were very aware and exploited it.  when we got better communications it became possible to coordinate across jurisdictional lines.  heck even as late as ted bundy's career the bad guys took advantage of poor communication.  hard to imagine life before the internet huh

[GigaBuist]

What recourse does the US have if Canada decides to start dumping waste into the great lakes?

WE'LL BEAT THEM HOSERS OVER THE HEAD WITH HOCKEY STICKS!
------

I'm actually more in line with BridgeWalker on this one.  You can't change anything too fast.  It's fun to think about but not realistic.

I'd be strongly in favor of slowly phasing out various military hardware programs too.  Anything not already in the field would be a prime candidate for getting cut.  Start with programs like that, trimming a bit every few years, just making sure that you don't too many people on the unemployment lines at once.  Give them enough time to find other uses for their skills before culling the next batch.  I'd like to think we'd see an improvement in consumer goods after forcing these people to work on something besides weapons.

I swear I'm not turning into a hippy.

[White Horseradish]

Campaign contributions are legalized bribery.  No matter what restriction you put in place, there will be unintended consquences and a way found around those restrictions (if not outright dishonesty).  The only way is make the contributions open and above board, so that everyone can see who is giving money to whom. 

But the real key is to get the money out of Washington (and Springfield and Helena and every other state capitol).  If there's no influence, there's no influence to buy.


There's no way to do it without trampling the 1A, so the only way to do is make sure that it's all open to public scrutiny. 

I am curious. You say any restrictive law will be bypassed, and then you suggest regulation to make it all transparent. Would they not find ways around that just as easily as around a restriction?

[Scout26]

I am curious. You say any restrictive law will be bypassed, and then you suggest regulation to make it all transparent. Would they not find ways around that just as easily as around a restriction?

Make the law easy to comply with.  Here it is:  Post all campaign contributions on your website within 48 hours our you instantly pay a fine to the FEC of 20x (50x, hell pick a number but make it painful) the donation amount.  Break that rule 3, 5, 10 (again, pick a number) times and you automatically forfeit the election, even if after you've "won".  Make it simple yet painful if broken.

[MicroBalrog]

they were very aware and exploited it.  when we got better communications it became possible to coordinate across jurisdictional lines.  heck even as late as ted bundy's career the bad guys took advantage of poor communication.  hard to imagine life before the internet huh

On the contrary, C&SD. I have read several books about life in the 19th century. Amazingly, police, especially in the second half of the 19th century, with the advent of telegraphs, found a variety of ways to go after criminals across state lines when they really cared for it, which was not often.